'It's more expensive for us because there are two of us'

[Vlent]

I am single and live alone. I am fed up of being told that couples' lives are more expensive because there are two of them.

For clarity, in all of these examples both halves of the couple are working full time and they live together.

A couple of recent examples:

My friend lives with her girlfriend and we often have drinks in one of our houses at the weekend. We had arranged to go for a drink in the city one Saturday, and at the last minute she suggested I just go to her house instead. I said I was looking forward to going out with her for a change, and was told it was too expensive for her because there are 'two of them' and so it would cost twice than what it did for me.

To be clear, if she couldn't afford it I would of course go to her house instead, and I did so, but it's the absolute lack of logic that annoys me, and she says it quite frequently - ie. 'It's okay for you to go out, Vlent, but it will cost DG and I £100 (or whatever) because there are two of us'.

I was discussing a holiday destination with another friend because another friend wants to visit there. I said it was cheap once you got there. DF said 'I thought it was quite expensive but then there are two of us'.

Another friend lives abroad in Europe, and I've visited her several times, but I don't enjoy the place, I visit to see her. She has just invited me to visit in the New Year. I said I didn't think I could, and why didn't she try and visit where I live (which is also her home town). I was told it would be better for me to visit her, because her husband would want to come here, and it would be too expensive 'for the two of them'.

It's really beginning to annoy me. Yes, there are two of you, and so each of you carry a cost, but you're also getting two incomes into your home and halving the bills, whereas I'm paying all of my bills from a single income. It is not more expensive for them to do these things than it is for me.

Another couple this weekend were acting as one in a round of drinks too - there were five of us and I bought a round, Fred bought a round, Sarah bought a round and then James and Jess bought one between them and then back to me, and so Fred, Sarah and I were buying other people four drinks each on our round, and the James and Jess bought other people three drinks between them.

AIBU?

Yes! With 2 straws

Unless only one of them has an income then I would have thought life is generally cheaper in a couple. Splitting the cost of mortgage/rent, power, food etc. Holidays generally a double room works out cheaper per person than a single, etc. YANBU

yanbu. Are they thick?

YABU only in respect of the friends you have. You need to stop hanging around with fools. I do wonder if they are only dim when it comes to spending money though.

The only one of the original examples I can see any sense in is that of travel costs. If three people want to get together then it will indeed be cheaper for one person to travel to the other two than vice versa.

Your friend is still unreasonable though, for two reasons. Firstly, presumably you pay for your tickets to visit her, so unless she's proposing to pay for you to travel it isn't fair that you always do so. Secondly, her point presupposes that she can't travel without her husband. If he wants to come too, then that is a separate issue and not a factor in determining where to meet up as far as I can see!

If three people want to get together then it will indeed be cheaper for one person to travel to the other two than vice versa.

It will NEVER be cheaper per person for one person to travel than for two! If the travel is by train or bus it is the same cost per person. If it is by car or taxi the cost per person is higher for the one person travelling than two.

It is the same as the "round of drinks" scenario. Of course a couple will pay for two train seats (or two rounds of drinks) because there are two of them. But the cost per person is the same as one person buying one train ticket (or one round of drinks).

Lol I get my partner to go to the bar too cause I'm awful clumsy and would need him to carry the drinks over .. my mum gets my dad to go up too, actually my sisters do the same... the trick is to sort of make a point of it, like say it's your round and hand your card /money to your partner and ask him to go up for you - you really only have to do this once and everyone at the table then understands that your also paying your way. In your case I would of just told your ex's dad that you had been paying but that you needed ex to carry the drinks and didn't see the point of you both going to the bar 🤷‍♀️

Doesn't help l am very short and tend to be overlooked at the bar!! Plus they struggled with my English accent sometimes so was a lot of hassle! Yes that is what l do these days although that particular boyfriend is nothing but a distant memory now!

I think it's safe to say your friends have the same mindset as @DameHelena which is that couples become one person and mixing affordability into the picture without explicitly saying it.
You are just talking about cost per person.
I have friends who do this too and it's sooo irritating. The worst part is the implication that it is your lack of awareness or lack of understanding of simple maths but actually what they're saying is "we can't afford it" or "we don't want to spend the money". Also the implication of unfairness is very annoying indeed. YANBU. Get them told !

Do you really never go to a bar without your partner?

Thanks everyone. Good to see most people don't think I'm unreasonable.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that anyone should be able to afford anything. My issue is with the suggestion that they can't afford something because it's too expensive for two of them, as if it would somehow be cheaper/more affordable if they were single and lived alone and only had to buy one ticket or whatever.

And yes, I'm not entirely sure why they always want their partner to come. Sometimes it is on the tip of my tongue to say 'I'm not asking your partner, only you.'

If the three were to split the travel cost equally between all three of them then it might be cheaper for the singleton to travel to the couple. Does that ever happen though?

This would never ever happen in my scenario.

Sometimes it is on the tip of my tongue to say 'I'm not asking your partner, only you.'

I think that would be a tactical error. ‘I’d love to see you both, but you’re welcome to come alone if the cost is too much.’
would be better.
I think you will eventually just feel too ripped off to bother seeing her though.

I thought it was much more expensive to live alone if you can't share the rent, utility bills, insurances, and even laundry and cooking! A full washer instead of a half filled one? Try and fine one-person-groceries at a good price?

Your friends sound like CFs and I would not be subsidising them anymore, OP!

I'm pleased to say that none of my couple friends would dream of behaving so selfishly. We are more likely to fight over who gets to pay. It's like Mrs Doyle and her friend at the cafe.

Even worse is when you go out as a couple with 2 other couples and every couple buys a round, everyone gets asked what drink they want except you in all 3 rounds (yes even by DH🤬)

it would be cheaper for the singleton than the couple. A couple = 2 people, so yes, it would cost the couple twice what it costs the singleton. It would be the same cost per person. Why is this difficult?

Why is this difficult?

It's not.

But you said it was cheaper for the singleton. It’s clearly not.

Surely you just say, and mines a xyz please?

Yeah of course it is, it’s also the reason some single people will choose to live in a house share rather than their own place because it’s cheaper to share.

I think all the people who don’t get this must have always lived as a couple and never lived alone because it’s utterly baffling that some people don’t get this.

But you said it was cheaper for the singleton. It’s clearly not.

I said 'If the three were to split the travel cost equally between all three of them then it might be cheaper for the singleton to travel to the couple.'
So - if it was public transport rather than a taxi, then the singleton travelling would incur the price of one ticket, whereas the couple would need two. Then if they were sharing the travel cost fairly, they could each pay for 1/3 of a ticket rather than each paying 2/3rds. Theoretically, of course no one really does that.

No, if three people were travelling by train they’d each pay their own fare.

That would be the same per individual whether one person was travelling or 3 people were travelling and split the total 3 ways.

One person’s train is £10.
Three people’s train total is £30, £10 each - how do you think this is cheaper for anyone?

The only way it’s cheaper is if it’s a taxi fare split between more than one person, the public transport example makes no sense at all.

You missed that the original scenario was:
If three people want to get together then it will indeed be cheaper for one person to travel to the other two than vice versa.